Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill

[°Leprechaun]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

[°Leprechaun]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

Good link.

[°Leprechaun]

I think the page speaks for itself, if a Muslim had shot three atheists and was found to have a page full of anti-atheists posts, there would be no hesitation to generalize. Atheists can be just as extreme as religious fanatics, it just depends on the person. Extremism is extremism, no matter where it comes from.

Correct. To think otherwise is just plain stupid.

[°Leprechaun]

Now this post sounds a bit silly in retrospect.

I was thinking the same, but as a Christian I thought it would be bad taste for me to bring it up.

You thought right. "Thou shalt not kill" applies equally to everyone. There are plenty of atheists whether "moderate" or not (whatever that means) who think that people killing people for any reason, is both stupid and evil. If nothing else, most humans should know right from wrong.

[°Leprechaun]

Well, there goes the superiority of the New Atheism.

I wasn't aware that condoning murder was a tenet of "the New Atheists"

[°Leprechaun]

Carl Sagan was about as tolerant a person as anyone, and he was an atheist.

[°Leprechaun]

err, this thread is getting weird...

Why are we assuming his actions were motivated by religious issues?  This would seem less presumptive if his feed was littered with references to anti-religious violence, or specifically seemed to target Muslims, but as far as I can tell neither is the case.  The one reference to Islam was criticizing "radical" Christianity and Islam together.  The one reference he had to violence I've seen was criticizing religion for causing it.

Of course, that makes him a hypocrite -- considering he murdered three people, probably the weakest charge against him -- but I don't really understand what here is making it so obvious to people that this was motivated by an ideological conviction relating to religion.

Making assumptions before the facts are in is not a good idea.

[°Leprechaun]

err, this thread is getting weird...

Why are we assuming his actions were motivated by religious issues?  This would seem less presumptive if his feed was littered with references to anti-religious violence, or specifically seemed to target Muslims, but as far as I can tell neither is the case.  The one reference to Islam was criticizing "radical" Christianity and Islam together.  The one reference he had to violence I've seen was criticizing religion for causing it.

Of course, that makes him a hypocrite -- considering he murdered three people, probably the weakest charge against him -- but I don't really understand what here is making it so obvious to people that this was motivated by an ideological conviction relating to religion.

Because for whatever reason we seem to have collectively given up on the idea that when someone goes crazy and shoots people the fault of it lies primarily on the guy who snapped and it's not in a vague sense "society's fault".

Whether he shot the men because of his anti-theist beliefs or not it's not New Atheism's fault he did it unless the New Atheists told him to; it's his own fault. The same applies to Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, ideology, or negation of.

Well, certainly a person needs to be held accountable for their actions.

[°Leprechaun]

Now this post sounds a bit silly in retrospect.

Wait, so an atheist kills some people and now it's silly to call religious terrorism for what it is?  That makes zero sense.  Islam is not the only religion to be used to justify violence and terrorism.

When has faith every made any sense? Point that out to any non-atheist and all you get is "I believe it on faith". Zero sense, as the apostle Thomas pointed out seeing is believing. Why should I accept anything on faith? The whole argument that one atheist does something wrong as evidence for God's existence makes zero sense. Who created this man who did these heinous murders?

[°Leprechaun]

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

Would recommend that you avoid making sweeping statements that are obviously untrue.

Good point, but was it motivated by atheism, per se?
Does the Communist Manifesto suggest war or murder as a means to an end. Yes communists are atheists, but not all atheists are communists. Atheism per se does not suggest war or murder as a means to an end. Is there an atheist bible?

[°Leprechaun]

What on earth is this thread? Armchair psychoanalysis of a gun nut, possibly mentally unstable, 'patriotic' atheist coupled with a bit of self congratulations. People have tragically died. That's the only fact we need to contend with right now.

What is this thread? Perhaps the dumbest thread ever on this forum.
Anyone want to nominate it?
I try not to post here much anymore, but the stupidity of this thread got my emotions
heated up.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't know why.  This is one of the few (if any) violent acts we've heard of that could even be accused of being motivated by atheism. 

Would recommend that you avoid making sweeping statements that are obviously untrue.

I know you've made the argument before, Al, that the atheistic elements of the Communist Party had a lot to do with why they persecuted Christians.  I disagree, as it is quite obvious to me that persecution took place as part of an overall power struggle.  The Communists were fighting an element they thought could undermine their ideal government and society... They were not persecuting them in the name of atheism.  Atheism has no tenants to which one can point to and radicalize.  Believe it or not, Hitch and Dawkins are not our "prophets".  You can not equate someone who interprets (often violent) religious text as a call to violence against non-believers to this "atheist terrorist". 

"no tenants" is right
atheism is the idea that there is no proof of God's existence
how could that simple definition promote any kind of killing

and who created atheists?

[°Leprechaun]

While I disagree with some of the ideas in this thread, I hold no animosity towards
anyone here for such differences.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_peac.htm

"IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE COMPASSIONATE, THE MERCIFUL, look with compassion on the whole human family"

What we need is less anger and more tolerance. The religious tolerance site is a good start.
As much as I disagree with some religions, I can still tolerate them. I can still keep in mind
that many/some religious people are looking for solutions and are not part of the problem
however I may disagree with their (some of) their beliefs.

[°Leprechaun]

The only thing that bothers me is the idea that these acts of violence by one person are
used as an argument against the idea that there is no proof of the existence of a certain
deity.

[°Leprechaun]

By the same token 9-11 was not proof that all Muslims are terrorists.
That is equally as aburd.

[°Leprechaun]

While I admit that people can be very evil, I think it is a shame how the media manipulates
people with stories like this. There is an "off" button to your TV and your computer.

[°Leprechaun]

Are those who are so quick to blame atheism for the acts of one crazy person willing to blame
Quakers for Nixon's role in Vietnam?

It makes about as much sense.

[°Leprechaun]

Is anyone here blaming atheism for this murderers murdering ways?

Good question.

What about Grumps?
"Damn atheists"
He isn't saying so, in so many words. It wasn't a very nice thing to say, however.

[°Leprechaun]

Is anyone here blaming atheism for this murderers murdering ways?

Good question.

What about Grumps?
"Damn atheists"
He isn't saying so, in so many words. It wasn't a very nice thing to say, however.

Pretty sure Grumps was just being facetious.

I missed that, ok, then.

[°Leprechaun]

If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?

[°Leprechaun]

If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?

Atheism is impossible to blame in good faith (pun intended). Atheism is a no-thing. There's a certain type of worldview that is atheistic, and to some extent preoccupied with this fact, but also characterized by a certain degree of intellectual intransigence and often an animus against Muslims specifically, that I think is what we're arguing about whether or not to blame. (I don't think 'militant atheism' and 'New Atheism' are especially honest terms for this worldview, but it's definitely an identifiable, and specific, ideological current.)

I think what's going on with Dawkins here is that he's concerned about whataboutery, even if the whataboutery is comparing incidents that are, while similar in kind, vastly different in degree. I think this is a reasonable concern for him to have, but I don't think he's doing himself any favors; he really does just seem like he's freaking out, and it's unbecoming. (Then again, Twitter has...never really been a medium in which he acquits himself very well in general.)

My view of the "New atheists" is that they are simply against the abuses of religion. It is wrong to compare them
to religious extremists or call them fundamentalists or to call them 'militant'. They are asserting the right to criticisize religion. You
could say that they are "evangelical" in the sense that they are supporting the superiority of reason over
blind faith. Faith is believing something without science or reason to back it up, and while I can't disprove
it, perhaps, as a reason to believe, I don't 'get it'.
For millenia (at least some of) religion has persecuted atheists, infidels, heretics and scientists.
Even in this century you had the monkey trial.
Atheists and scientists have contributed a lot to the world. Religion (generally speaking) has held us back.
I like the quote from "Inherit the Wind", "I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."
While they may not be as diplomatic as some people would prefer, in being critical of religion, their intentions
is to promote a reasonable debate vis a vis the usefulness of religion.
I might not agree with all their political views, but their defense of reason as a method of seeking truth appeals to me.

[°Leprechaun]

As far as their criticism of Islam in particular, well, certainly there are moderate Muslims, but today radical Islam does seem to be problematic, but there are extremists in a lot of religions.

In the following essay, Sam Harris is critical of all religions, not just Muslims:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/

[°Leprechaun]

If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?

That Atheist extremists like Bill Maher and Sam Harris's saying Islam is an enemy of the West on television should be treated with the equivalency of Muslim political leaders like Ahmadinejad going in front of the U.N. saying the Holocaust never happened.

It is propaganda which incites violence.

You may have a valid point. I saw that show, but I can't remember everything, it was a while ago. I don't think either of them believe that all Muslims are bad people (I obviously don't), I think that they would concede that there are plenty of moderate Muslims. I am sure that they could have chosen their words more wisely.
I for one, have studied Sufism and that doesn't fit in with fundamentalist Islam at all, in fact many more right wing
Muslims consider Sufis heretics.

[°Leprechaun]

Maher I believe has said there is no such thing as moderate or liberal Islam and that all Muslims believe X, Y, & Z blah blah.

If he did, that was stupid. I will have to look at the youtube video and get back to you on that.

[°Leprechaun]

Maher I believe has said there is no such thing as moderate or liberal Islam and that all Muslims believe X, Y, & Z blah blah.

Here are some youtube videos with Harris

Sam Harris:

"There are hundreds of millions
of Muslims who are nominal
Muslims who don't take the
faith seriously." who don't
want to kill apostates who
are horrified by ISIS" etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7z2Ml2tI0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG4WCLOBPbo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU